Debunking TV: Fake or Fortune? – Real Art, Real Value, or Just a Game for the Rich?
Fake or Fortune? is one of those TV shows I keep coming back to, despite the fact that it often drives me up the wall. On paper, it’s compelling: someone finds a dusty old painting in the attic or at a car boot sale and thinks (or desperately hopes) that it might be by a master – Monet, Turner, Freud, maybe even a Da Vinci. Enter the show’s art sleuths, led by Fiona Bruce and art dealer Philip Mould, who embark on a thrilling journey through archives, X-ray scans, pigment analysis, and expert panels to try to authenticate the work. Sometimes, they win the lottery; sometimes, they walk away disappointed. It’s Antiques Roadshow meets CSI: The Louvre . But here's the rub: it often feels a bit… fake. The central conceit of the show hinges on the idea that an artwork only becomes valuable (and therefore important ) if someone in a position of academic or institutional power says so. Art, we are reminded again and again, is not necessarily about beauty, creativity, emotion, or cu...